Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Warfare Links

Author
#1 - 2013-03-27 13:41:00 UTC
With the change to off grid boosting on its way maybe its time to spitball ideas on what's the best way for warfare links to be passed to fleet members.

The coolest thing that I can think of is to make warfare links act like energy/shield/armor transfers in that they have to be activated on a fleet mate within a certain range. Once the warfare link is activated on a fleet mate it would then bounce to anyone within 10 km and could be bonused by a new skill out to 20/40/60/80/100 km per skill level.

A new cool graphic like armor transfers would be nice :)

P.S.

Please don't make this a discussion about how OP offgrid boosting is, how the nerf to it will ruin small gang warfare or how you want your leadership skillpoints reimbursed on your alt OGB.

Not today spaghetti.

#2 - 2013-03-27 13:55:01 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
With the change to off grid boosting on its way maybe its time to spitball ideas on what's the best way for warfare links to be passed to fleet members.

The coolest thing that I can think of is to make warfare links act like energy/shield/armor transfers in that they have to be activated on a fleet mate within a certain range. Once the warfare link is activated on a fleet mate it would then bounce to anyone within 10 km and could be bonused by a new skill out to 20/40/60/80/100 km per skill level.

A new cool graphic like armor transfers would be nice :)

P.S.

Please don't make this a discussion about how OP offgrid boosting is, how the nerf to it will ruin small gang warfare or how you want your leadership skillpoints reimbursed on your alt OGB.


Personally i'd like to see the general concept of the boosting to remain as-is but only effect what is on grid.

However i would like there to some function to disrupt them (i.e ecm) but to work in a way like scrams do on an MWD rather than the links need to be used on a fleet member.

with the changes also in the pipes for command ships they are supposed to able to have both a command and a combat role, so if you are forced to spend locks on activating links it is going to difficult for the pilot of focus on having any real contribution to the battle itself.
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-03-27 13:56:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
I think a bubble idea is better much like the one HIC's use projected from the ship and fleet mates inside that sphere would get the boost.
As to whether the bubble is visible or not isn't particularly important as the module would have a set range i would suggest the range varies from each link in relevance to the boost they give i.e skirmish links that boost speed would have a greater range to allow for the ships spreading out more.

Tanking links like shield resist should be brawler range as to indicate its role and it being a powerful module.
So maybe 20km for the tanking mods
and 35km for less powerful mods that need more flexibility.
Some skills could have a small effect on boosting range but i would be careful not to get to ridiculous ranges like 100km etc.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

#4 - 2013-03-27 14:08:26 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:

with the changes also in the pipes for command ships they are supposed to able to have both a command and a combat role, so if you are forced to spend locks on activating links it is going to difficult for the pilot of focus on having any real contribution to the battle itself.


I don't think the boosting command ship having to target 1 fleet member to get warfare links up would detract that much from its usefulness in the battle.

It would add a few dynamics to the fleet positioning... anchor on the ship that's getting the warfare links activated on it, stay within X range of it, boosting command ship stay out of range of the bulk of the enemy fleet but within warfare link range.

More actual piloting during engagements is something that is sorely needed.

Not today spaghetti.

#5 - 2013-03-27 14:20:05 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
monkfish2345 wrote:

with the changes also in the pipes for command ships they are supposed to able to have both a command and a combat role, so if you are forced to spend locks on activating links it is going to difficult for the pilot of focus on having any real contribution to the battle itself.


I don't think the boosting command ship having to target 1 fleet member to get warfare links up would detract that much from its usefulness in the battle.

It would add a few dynamics to the fleet positioning... anchor on the ship that's getting the warfare links activated on it, stay within X range of it, boosting command ship stay out of range of the bulk of the enemy fleet but within warfare link range.

More actual piloting during engagements is something that is sorely needed.


but what you are suggesting is just for everyone to anchor on the Cmd ship or the ship being boosted.

This already happens a fair about because they are such solid ships and it makes sense to keep the fleet tight. but this would actively encourage it being done more, which i'm not sure is a good thing. i'd like pilots to have to think a little more than just orbit the anchor or die.
by allowing the other fleet members not to be tied to a set range allows them to break from the group either to pick off targets or themselves get isolated.

also for interceptors this would make their job a nightmare as they would be dropping bonus's when they try and chase down a fleet which would make kiting even more effective.

#6 - 2013-03-27 14:23:39 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I think a bubble idea is better much like the one HIC's use projected from the ship and fleet mates inside that sphere would get the boost.
As to whether the bubble is visible or not isn't particularly important as the module would have a set range i would suggest the range varies from each link in relevance to the boost they give i.e skirmish links that boost speed would have a greater range to allow for the ships spreading out more.

Tanking links like shield resist should be brawler range as to indicate its role and it being a powerful module.
So maybe 20km for the tanking mods
and 35km for less powerful mods that need more flexibility.
Some skills could have a small effect on boosting range but i would be careful not to get to ridiculous ranges like 100km etc.


I quite like this idea, it would a fair amount of work to get the ranges for each boost right, but it would allow the fleets to remain flexible.
it's a difficult balance to try and avoid making everyone be forced to flying fleets in a very specific way though as well. you could easily end up making life far harder for the people that design innovative new fleet tactics.
#7 - 2013-03-27 14:30:12 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
Sexy Cakes wrote:
monkfish2345 wrote:

with the changes also in the pipes for command ships they are supposed to able to have both a command and a combat role, so if you are forced to spend locks on activating links it is going to difficult for the pilot of focus on having any real contribution to the battle itself.


I don't think the boosting command ship having to target 1 fleet member to get warfare links up would detract that much from its usefulness in the battle.

It would add a few dynamics to the fleet positioning... anchor on the ship that's getting the warfare links activated on it, stay within X range of it, boosting command ship stay out of range of the bulk of the enemy fleet but within warfare link range.

More actual piloting during engagements is something that is sorely needed.


but what you are suggesting is just for everyone to anchor on the Cmd ship or the ship being boosted.

This already happens a fair about because they are such solid ships and it makes sense to keep the fleet tight. but this would actively encourage it being done more, which i'm not sure is a good thing. i'd like pilots to have to think a little more than just orbit the anchor or die.
by allowing the other fleet members not to be tied to a set range allows them to break from the group either to pick off targets or themselves get isolated.

also for interceptors this would make their job a nightmare as they would be dropping bonus's when they try and chase down a fleet which would make kiting even more effective.



Yeah, good points.

Not today spaghetti.

#8 - 2013-03-27 21:27:39 UTC  |  Edited by: paritybit
Personally I prefer to leave the mechanism as it is, but without the ability to boost beyond a smallish range (you can mostly read this as grid).

I'm making this next part up, but I don't care.

I expect that what warfare links do is act as a centralized computational center for other ships which feed their sensor data to it; with all this sensor data and computational power, networked ships receive whatever bonus[es] the links are optimized to provide (shields, armor, electronic warfare, engines). Thinking about it this way might lead one to believe that if you could disrupt the network between the command ship and the ships benefiting from the links then you could disrupt the bonuses.

I don't see this as another effect for ECM. Rather it makes sense that some new module might be developed, maybe it's called a communication disruptor or network disruptor. And maybe it also interferes with the target's ability to use the directional scanner. And since I'm making stuff up, I might as well say it could be used on either the command ship (to disrupt all communications) or on a run-of-the-mill fleet member to prevent that ship from receiving link bonuses.
#9 - 2013-03-27 22:22:44 UTC
paritybit wrote:
Personally I prefer to leave the mechanism as it is, but without the ability to boost beyond a smallish range (you can mostly read this as grid).

I'm making this next part up, but I don't care.

I expect that what warfare links do is act as a centralized computational center for other ships which feed their sensor data to it; with all this sensor data and computational power, networked ships receive whatever bonus[es] the links are optimized to provide (shields, armor, electronic warfare, engines). Thinking about it this way might lead one to believe that if you could disrupt the network between the command ship and the ships benefiting from the links then you could disrupt the bonuses.

I don't see this as another effect for ECM. Rather it makes sense that some new module might be developed, maybe it's called a communication disruptor or network disruptor. And maybe it also interferes with the target's ability to use the directional scanner. And since I'm making stuff up, I might as well say it could be used on either the command ship (to disrupt all communications) or on a run-of-the-mill fleet member to prevent that ship from receiving link bonuses.



tbh ECM was the closest module i could think of that is currently in play that could be used for this effect, but potentially a new mod could do it, that way you'd need to have some ships commit to being anti boosting ships in return for something else.
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2013-03-27 23:02:48 UTC
anything that supports the removal of off-grid boosters is a poorly conceived idea that will bring no benefit to the game.

gas op, burn thread etc.
Forum Jump